“Ban The Cell Phones Law”

Hmm. Oh wait, you're allowed to use the phone for emergency services.

I've had plenty of conversations at 160 km/h. There is nowhere near the level of distraction that a phone call presents, handsfree or not. I have read studies that show how it is distracting to us, as mentioned above, but I haven't really found anything that explains why. What's so different about a phone call that keeps our brains from processing other information?

Squishy wrote:What's so different about a phone call that keeps our brains from processing other information?

Part of your brain during a phone conversation dedicates itself to forming a mental quasi-image of the person you are talking to. Ever notice how you might be hand-gesturing while talking on the phone even though the person can't see you?

tdrive2 wrote:What if your insurance company would not pay a single dime if you got into an accident while on a cell phone.

Because people involved in those collisions who were talking on a cellphone, realizing that they weren't covered by insurance, would hit and run. So then we find that the guilty party doesn't have insurance coverage (due to being on the cellphone), the victim gets hosed and we all pay higher insurance rates because we have to cover for people who talk on cellphones who are involved in collisions. No thanks.

tdrive2 wrote:BORING. Phone = something to do, read, etc.

This is probably why more rear-end collisions happen in stop-and-go traffic when the trailing driver had a LARGE following distance as opposed to a small one. (Traffic stops, person is pre-occupied by cellphone, traffic starts moving again, notices it some time later, so starts moving, still pre-occupied by cellphone, traffic stops again, then person notices... BANG.) If you want to be preoccupied with something while on the road and find the task of driving too boring, take public transit. Then you can talk on the phone, text message, read a book or eat a bowl of cereal if that's your thing.

But for anyone who feels justified in using a cellphone while driving and thinks others should do the same, except for emergencies, I'd ask you this: I'm an airline pilot. Let's say you're one of the passengers. We're going into Toronto or Ottawa or wherever in a heavy snowstorm with high winds, heavy icing conditions and low visibility (or any other challenging situation). How safe would you feel if I was chatting on my cellphone during the approach instead of giving my undivided attention to flying the plane?

Squishy wrote:I don't know if it's that we learn to obey women (mothers, girlfriends, wives ) or if it's some alpha male thing, where we refuse to be told what to do by another man, machine or not.

Be interesting to find out...

tdrive2 wrote:

The first thing is insurance companies should not offer any coverage on claims for those who get into accidents while talking on a cellular phone.

ok smarty clown, how do you propose we obtain this information that someone is talking on a phone and collides with something? I have never had anyone tell me that, even when prompted in an interview.

hwybear wrote:

tdrive2 wrote:

The first thing is insurance companies should not offer any coverage on claims for those who get into accidents while talking on a cellular phone.

ok smarty clown, how do you propose we obtain this information that someone is talking on a phone and collides with something? I have never had anyone tell me that, even when prompted in an interview.

Phone records. You would probably be able to hear the impact, air bags deploy, glass shattering...... for example.

Part of your brain during a phone conversation dedicates itself to forming a mental quasi-image of the person you are talking to. Ever notice how you might be hand-gesturing while talking on the phone even though the person can't see you?

That's always been my hypothesis as well, but then why does the predominant 'reasoning' seem to be that a real passenger knows how to shut up during tense moments? The 'mental image' reasoning makes more sense to me; it's like when you immerse yourself in a book and lose track of your surroundings.

Phone records. You would probably be able to hear the impact, air bags deploy, glass shattering...... for example.

I don't think phone records include recordings of your call...yet. The driver could say the passenger was making that call, although I think they're screwed if there is no passenger.

Phone records aren't very easy to obtain, are they?

Hwybear i know this for a fact.

by law phone companies, internet companies keep a record of everything you do for criminal purposes.

I think for phone calls and e-mails in the states it is like 6 months or something.

And phone records are way easier.

The police would have no problem doing that.

All you would do is call them. You guys already have access to them. I am sure you guys investigate accidents all the time. They already pay big bucks for people to "re construct accidents"

They'll even close a road off for hours and inconvenience thousands of people.

So a officer calling a phone company asking for a phone record at a certain time and is not a big deal is it?

It would take ten minutes or so.

Phone companies record calls how else would they bill you?

If you get caught doing bad stuff online they can look at your history, e-mail etc with a warrant.

Even if you needed a warrant don't tell me it would be a big deal to call a phone company asking for a record of phone calls on one day of a month.

Police will go way further then that for other investigations. I know this is not a big deal.

Reflections okay people will run, but maybe they wont talk? If someone does something bad already why wont they run.

Lots of people would rather run rather then pay thousands for auto insurance.

i think the biggest thing the province and state makes when setting laws or speed limits is people arent stupid.

They have their own opinions and thoughts to.

Just cause a rule is set does not mean people will listen to it.

Let's be realistic they're is way more people speed than get caught, way more that drink and drive that don't get caught, way more aggressive drivers then they say, and probably more accidents and collisions.

I got another idea. How about We wont cover medical insurance for those using phones to get into accidents. They can pay the bill themselves?

Or what about those fat people and those who smoke who stress our medicare system.

I mean you guys all hate speeders right. But you will always say they had a choice to not go 50 over.

I mean people have a choice not to smoke to, they also have a choice to not be obese and ruin their hearts.

So what now will Ontario ban fast food to?

This cell phone law does absolutely noting, i tried a hands free set. Its annoying you gotta fart around, talk louder, frankly its a bigger annoyance and a hassle. Then you gotta have a cord up to your window and probably get pulled over cause some cop thinks your using a radar detector.

Im sick of the Nany state. I can make my own decisions, and judge danger/risk for myself. I am sure plenty off others are like this to.

All things depend. I know when to use my phone. I also know i don't drive as fast in city traffic as i do in the middle of the night on a 3 lane highway.

Forced Insurance, medicare, etc. The list goes on. I think they hamper peoples decision and they do stupid things.

I wonder if less people would smoke if they knew later on in life they would be responsible to foot the bill of any complications from cigarettes.

Why don't insurance companies do this.

For all of you that hate speeders. What if they said your on your own for driving drunk?

You can suspend their license but they will drive. You can give them a ticket and they will pay for it. But don't you think it would send a stronger message if they drove drunk crashed their car into a river and were responsible for the medical charges, the damage to the car, hurting someone else, damaging public property.

I am just trying to make a point, its not perfect but then again that calls into question the whole object of insurance contracts.

For speed limits how come we never see people come here and complain about getting tickets in down town toronto?

Well of course 50 there is fast. With lanes stopping, trucks parked on side of the road, pedestrians running across the road, construction, 1 way streets.

I cant imagine driving fast in downtown Toronto its hard enough as it is. But 100 on the 401 with 3 lanes and a huge concrete barrier at 3 am in the morning?

We always here people getting tickets for that but never speeding way over on city streets.

I mean how can you even consider 50 over in a school zone, with 50 over on a controlled access super highway?

Handsfree makes you fart? That's...hmm.

Damn T, you are long winded....

Squishy wrote:That's always been my hypothesis as well, but then why does the predominant 'reasoning' seem to be that a real passenger knows how to shut up during tense moments?

Good question... I believe that it's because it is a simple, succinct explanation, and the whole "mental image" thing seems a bit abstract, even though I think the "mental image" idea makes more sense. Another thing to add to the mix is that 55% of our communication is non-verbal, 38% is "paralanguage," and 7% is verbal - the words we actually say. Without the person sitting right there, our brain tries to "fill in the blank" for the 55% we don't have. Or when driving, as one writer put it, "while talking on the cellphone, our eyes might be on the road, but our mind certainly isn't."

tdrive2 wrote:Lots of people would rather run rather then pay thousands for auto insurance.

You got me and Reflections mixed up there. Well, consider this. Now, as a result of the collision, they're going to personally be on the hook for the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to fix their car, fix the other car, and pay compensation to the victim that they just hit if the person is seriously injured. Why do you think most people carry $1 or $2 million liability? If you know you stand a better chance of avoiding total personal financial ruin by running, most people would run. Why give them the incentive to do so? Also, if the person does not have any substantial amount of savings, the victim's insurance company pays but cannot recoup any of the costs. So who do they pass the bill on to? ALL OF US BY HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

tdrive2 wrote:Hwybear i know this for a fact.

by law phone companies, internet companies keep a record of everything you do for criminal purposes.

I think for phone calls and e-mails in the states it is like 6 months or something.

And phone records are way easier.

The police would have no problem doing that.

All you would do is call them. You guys already have access to them. I am sure you guys investigate accidents all the time. They already pay big bucks for people to "re construct accidents"

Not quite so simple.

First we would have to find out which company the person deals with(ask or if cell phone stamped with company), if they tell us to "pound salt" we would then have to get a warrant to search every cell company to see if that person is a client. Involved in the warrant has to be reasons to believe what we are searching for is where it is and why this will be helpful to the investigation.

Not saying it can not be done, but is countless hours of paperwork.

Wouldn't privacy laws prohibit the cellphone companies from giving this information? Also, I am not sure that any of the phone calls are recorded, that is a huge privacy infringement and that would get decried very quickly.

I think a warrant can force the phone companies to give up that information, like Bear describes above. But for a traffic accident? I hear that accident reconstruction isn't even called out unless there is a fatality - this seems like roughly the same amount of manpower, although the hours would be spent on paperwork instead of at the scene with a measuring tape.

And what's being suggested isn't even for laying charges; it would be for the benefit of the insurance companies. I don't see the police wasting their time on that. There would have to be legislation passed to allow insurance companies to access phone logs, like they can now with our ticket history. Good luck trying to pass that.

Squishy wrote:I think a warrant can force the phone companies to give up that information, like Bear describes above. But for a traffic accident? I hear that accident reconstruction isn't even called out unless there is a fatality - this seems like roughly the same amount of manpower, although the hours would be spent on paperwork instead of at the scene with a measuring tape.

And what's being suggested isn't even for laying charges; it would be for the benefit of the insurance companies. I don't see the police wasting their time on that. There would have to be legislation passed to allow insurance companies to access phone logs, like they can now with our ticket history. Good luck trying to pass that.

Everyone has to comply with a warrant. That is what is required to get past the privacy issues. The officer has to have grounds for the warrant, draft up the warrant, (about 10 plus pages), take the draft warrant to court and present the draft to the courts, the JP then reads the draft, decides if it is reasonable and either declines or approves the warrant.

Collision Investigation - I`ll go make a thread in police area.

A warrant might/could be done for serious bodily harm/ death collisions where use of a cellphone could help determine the cause of a collision.

This is an interesting discussion. thank you for sharing

Plus for a warrant you actually have to have a belief that a phone was used. If there is no witnesses no JP would give the warrant

you cannot just go fishing with a warrant.

OPS